Now you are going to start pushing Islam on us?
Not in the religion forums, on religious issues. And I’m not a candidate for public office.
I think candidates can, and should, profess their faith, and I think they can also say why the don’t agree with other faiths. I think you can do this without calling people who believe differently than you stupid, or evil, as a stereotyped characterization.
I have supported a conservative who professed the Muslim faith for a local office, and I know there were freepers who thought that was crazy. I knew other conservatives who ended up supporting the democrat for that office, rather than the conservative republican, because the conservative was a muslim. However, that was a candidate for office, not a voter. I think it was a wrong choice, but I understand why people wouldn’t vote for a muslim, and I wish those on the other side would at least acknowledge that a person CAN be a conservative and have a different opinion on the subject of electing non-Christians to office, when they are the conservative.
But I would never “push” any religion on you. I certainly have never suggested anybody should become Mormon; heck, I’m pretty sure I’ve never actually told people they should become Presbyterian.
Anyway, this has gone far astray of my point, which was to question the claim that Harry Reid recieved a majority of the Mormon vote.
BTW, shorter response: Do you think a person would vote for a candidate after the candidate called them stupid for their religious beliefs, or said they were cult members?
The question isn’t about whether a candidate SHOULD say those things; it’s about whether you actually disagreed with my statement, which was that a candidate can’t expect to get the vote of a person if the candidate attacks that person’s religion.
My point is this: A candidate needs 50%+1 to win an election. A candidate has things they will do in office, and those things should be what is right for the country, and if they can be trusted, they should be able to sell those ideas and get 50%+1. It appears counter-productive to me to ask a candidate to take stands on matters of religion for which there is no government involvement, which therefore will not matter for the office they are seeking, when taking those stands will turn off voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for them.
The “muslim” issue I think is unique, because it is clear that a good number of muslim leaders do seek to use the political world to impose their religious beliefs, and it is reasonable therefore to make sure a candidate will stand for freedom of religion, and against the imposition of religious restrictions that favor muslims.